workshop item #18 for 6/12/06 agenda

Browse Search

and or condition of probation or parole. This term of condition is set by the court in rendering judgment during the punishment phase after the person has been found guilty of the offense. Once that person has met or completed the terms of his probation or paroles those penalties or conditions are no longer valid. The only factor that remains forever with the offender is the requirement that he must register with his local Police Department as a Sex Offender. In some cases the CCP has provisions in which the Judge can set aside the 1,000 safety zone in his initial findings or upon hearing an appeal lift the restriction. It appears that the 1,000 foot safety zone is a JUDICAL requirement established by a Judge in his fmdings and is limited by the terms of the punishment rendered by the court. In checking around I was advised that when the ASHLEY Bill was originally introduced that this condition was initially submitted that a sex offender cannot live or be within a 1,000 feet of an area where children gather or play. According to the information I was given, the Senate's legal advisors apparently looked at the restriction as if applied to a person who was discharged from probation or parole. They did feel that applying those restrictions on those discharged would not withstand constitutional challenge. The legislature did feel that a 100 foot restriction would withstand constitutional scrutiny. I have asked for various opinions from through the Child Assessment Center and to date have not gotten anything back, other than some research information on recidivism of sex offenders. I am including some of these articles for your consideration and you will find argument that sex offenders (low and medium risk offenders) are low and in the same article see that the figure may not be accurate as not all offenses are reported. I asked Senator Mike Jackson for some help in perhaps locating these attorneys that gave legal advice to the Senate on the Ashley Bill. Senator Jackson was unaware that some of our Texas cities have passed such an ordinance and was also concerned about the constitutionality of such an ordinance. His office did contact me and they advised that in talking to the legal staff they were also unaware that such an ordinance has been passed by Texas cities. They recommended caution in adopting the ordinance at this time and that it would be prudent to take a wait and see attitude on what happens next. In addition there will be stronger bills submitted to the Legislature regarding sex offenders in the future. I have also been made aware of a suit file by the ACLU against Taylor Falls, Minnesota for this particular issue and according to the press ACLU intends to file suits against any other entity having the same ordinance or law. The basis of their suit is the constitutionality of the ordinance. Several of my officers have advised me recently that on the radio they have heard attorneys asking for anyone who has been fmancially affected by the 1,000 foot safety zone ordinances to contact them. It appears that there is an organized group looking for cases to challenge the constitutionality of this type of ordinance. In looking at the ordinance I have obtained a copy of Brazoria's Ordinance and now Alvin. They are basically the same and rely on the same justification. In their ordinances they do provide certain exceptions which are the same: